The key point is that sadly all these authorizations are opt-out aka by default your are giving them authorization.
I really do not get you. I cited Twitter just because I have a Twitter account while I do not have an Instragram account. BTW given that you opened this weird thread is up to you to read the Instagram ToS not me.
And I believe you should have read Instagram ToS before posting here.
Anyway given that it seem that your Google search doesn't work, here it is, even fully explained:
Ryan used one of the bazillion social network web plugins out there. The plugin is feed with a stream of filtered content (in his case, Instragram photos tagged Nauticam). So it's perfectly legal and having an Instagram account you authorized this kind of use from the very first day. It's the same for all SN: Instagram, Twitter, FB, G+, you name it.
Don't you like it? Just share you photo with monks on Meteora Monastir.
Regarding your rumble the only gray territory I see is whether you specify some specific license for your photos (i.e. BY NC ND SA) and nauticam did not respect it. My Vimeo videos are tagged NC SA so I would pissed of fto see one of them in a commercial website.
Its' enough for me.
I didn't open this weird thread. I'm commenting on it just like you are.
The specific web plugin Nauticam used from the bazillion you say exist is a service from foursixty.com which can funnel IG images to a website and emails. Here's what foursixty.com says about rights:
"digital rights management.
With Foursixty's automated rights management system, you'll be able to request and secure the rights to your customer photos and videos with just a click. And, we’ll monitor content approvals as they come in so you can keep doing your thing."
Built into this service is a way to request a secure rights from the customer--the main sticking point with what Nauticam did, using photos without asking. This wasn't implemented, but it sounds like Ryan is going back to the drawing board to implement.
Further from the https://foursixty.comToS (relevant text in bold https://foursixty.co...ms_conditions):
5. YOUR LIMITED LICENSE OF YOUR USER CONTENT TO FOURSIXTY
We do not claim any ownership interest in your User Content, but we do need the right to use your User Content to the extent necessary to operate the Site and provide the Services, now and in the future.
If your User Content is intended for the use of other Users, you also grant us and our affiliates and subsidiaries a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable right to sublicense such User Content to such Users for their use in connection with their use of the Services, as described in Section 6 of these Terms. For clarity, you acknowledge that the Services allow other Users of the Services to post, publish and distribute your User Content in the manner described on the Site, and that by entering into these Terms you expressly permit us to license to them your User Content for that purpose, and you acknowledge that we have no control over their usage of your User Content.
These licenses from you are non-exclusive because you have the right to use your User Content elsewhere. They are royalty-free because we are not required to pay you for the use of your User Content on the Services. And they are transferable because we need the right to transfer these licenses to any successor operator of the Services. Our rights to “modify, adapt, translate, and create derivative works from” are necessary because the normal operation of the Services does this to your User Content when it processes it for use in the Services.